Hillary, Obama, McCain — All Good Choices

The three remaining serious candidates for president — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain — are all qualified for the job. The fourth candidate, Mike Huckabee, who flip-flops on accepting the theory of evolution, is not.

How, in the modern age, can we have a president who wavers on basic biology?

So, the ultimate choice will be between three widely different candidates. Hillary claims experience and a steady hand with moderate balanced solutions to the myriad of problems facing the U.S. Barack claims energy, vision for a new beginning, and the ability to reach out to others. McCain, a moderate conservative, claims a lock on straight talk, war hero status and willingness to seek a military victory in Iraq. He understands the perils we face worldwide.

There will be efforts by some foolish supporters of the three candidates to vilify the opponents of their candidate, using both truth and falsehoods. The public will not be fooled. The people will choose that candidate who they have the most faith in to lead the nation through the next four years, possibly eight, which may be the most perilous we have ever experienced. If you receive scurrilous material in the mail about any of the candidates, toss it. Don't pass it on.

I'm for Hillary because I think she is the best, but I can comfortably live with the thought that Obama or McCain might win. I am, after all, a liberal with sanity.

The most important tests for the candidate who wins will be those that follow the general election. Can we, in that overused but appropriate phrase, come together, and present a solid united front to the world, particularly the fanatics who hate us and would like to bring us to our knees?

Regrettably, there are many people in our extraordinary country, particularly young people, who do not appreciate how fortunate they are to live here. Huge numbers of people living elsewhere than in the U.S. would, if they could, come here to spend the balance of their days. Of course, there are gross inequities to be addressed and differences in opinions on how to address them, and that's what elections are all about.

We can and should do that without tearing the country apart. The country is divided politically almost down the middle, but I believe the division is not a radical one, but rather, center left versus center right, and that moderation and respect for the rights of others is what most of us support. I certainly hope so.

No matter who wins, it appears to me that all three candidates believe that the issue of illegal immigration can only be solved by providing amnesty. They would not accept that description, preferring "a path to citizenship." I oppose that solution. I am for legal immigration and expanding it, but I am not for "open borders." No country in the world has open borders.

I believe we should double or triple the numbers of legal immigrants if that is what we need. I would even allow, if the country of origin wants to put them ahead of those now in line lawfully for them to be given a preference, but only after they have returned to their country. I would provide special consideration for parents of children born in the U.S.

No one in his/her right mind suggests rounding up the illegal aliens in massive lockup efforts. What rational people suggest is that U.S. employers knowingly hiring illegal aliens be subject to mandatory prison terms. If there are no jobs, the illegals will go home on their own. Indeed, we should pay their way. I believe my opinion on this matter represents the majority opinion in the country.

But it is not to be. Remember, however, my rule — pick a dozen issues. If you agree with me on eight out of 12 (when I was a candidate for public office), you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist. Not accepting the theory of evolution is not a permissible exception under my rule. Am I being intolerant?